Customizable electronic commerce comparison system and method

ABSTRACT

In a consumer information system, a method of comparing products and services including providing product specific information, providing merchant specific information on the specified product, providing merchant specific business information, providing product specific information collected by third parties, providing merchant specific information collected by third parties, applying weighting factors to the information provided, producing an aggregate value for each merchant based on the weighting factors as applied to the information provided, and producing a ranking of the merchants offering the specified product based on the aggregate value for each merchant. The system provides for consumers to select a set of standardized weighting factors or to modify the standardized weighting factors or to create their own weighting factors. The system provides detailed information to consumers on the breakdown of factors influencing the rating.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to price comparison and shoppingsystems, and more particularly, to online comparison-shopping systems.

2. Description of the Related Art

Online shopping systems, or “shop bots,” provide consumers with theability to perform a price comparison for a specific product. A shop botwill search its database for the specified product, the product's price,and a few other pieces of information. The shop bot then returns theresults of the query to the user, typically ranking the return resultsbased on the price each merchants specifies for the product. Often thelowest price is given the highest ranking. However, some shop bots limitmerchant access to those merchants who have paid the shop bot a fee forbeing included in their rankings.

Examples of available shop bots include Junglee™ which provides aconsumer with the ability to specify a product and receive a searchreturn ranking merchants who list the product as for sale. The rankingis based solely on price of the product.

Another shop bot is MySimon™ which provides a similar search returnranking merchants based on price of the offered goods. Merchants candistinguish themselves from other merchants by purchasing links to themerchants web site, promotional advertising, or logos.

Still another shop bot is pcOrder.com which provides information onprice and compatibility of computer products from affiliatedmanufacturers and distributors. Several web sites, including “Shop theWeb” from Amazon.com do rating and providing recommendations on sites.These sites are limited to ranking based on offered price and do notinclude the total price to the consumer, including the costs of shippingand handling which can vary widely among different merchants. Somemerchants have begun the practice of offering low prices on the productand including high sipping and handling charges. In this manner somemerchants have sought to manipulate existing shop bots which only rankbased on offered price of the product, and not the total price for theproduct delivered to the consumer.

Some web sites allow for ranking by consumers. Sites such as Compare.netallow a consumer to select and compare offerings from differentmerchants or manufacturers, and the consumer may select a ranking buttonwhich allows the consumer to respond in survey fashion to which productthe consumer would most likely purchase. The disadvantage of such websites is that they only present data to the consumer and then let theconsumer perform the difficult task of making a comparison. In thismanner the site does little for the consumer. What the site does do ispresent and collect survey information for use by merchants andmanufacturers

Another online service aimed at providing consumers with information isBizRate™. Bizrate collects information through consumer questionnairesat the point of purchase and through independent testing. Bizrate usesthis information in rating, such as gold or silver, a merchant. Thecollection of information through point of purchase questionnairesnecessitates the cooperation and approval of the merchant. Notsurprisingly, merchants who do not score well on these surveys have anincentive not to continue participating.

While some web sites seek to compile information on multiple merchants,other sites provide consumers with information on their specificproduct. Sites such as those run by Dell™ and Gmbuypower.com help aconsumer select a product and see how the customization of the producteffects the price, but these sites do not allow for customization ofcomparing between different merchants offering similar goods. Such sitesoften present data on their offered product in manner that is mostfavorable to the merchant or manufacturer. Consumers lack the ability tocustomize the site to their needs or to rank competing products based onmore than just offered price.

Another problem for consumers in using the available web sites is theaffiliation, whether made known to the consumer or not, of the web sitewith the merchant or manufacturer. Advertising and licensing are majorrevenue sources for many web sites from portals to shop bots. Merchantsor manufacturers pay for more prominent placement in search returns andrankings. Some sites only search or rank merchants that pay a fee to thesite. Such affiliations undermine the credibility of the informationpresented to the consumer and obscure any validity of the search orranking.

Thus, there has been a need for providing consumers with specificinformation which enables them to make informed decisions. The presentinvention meets this need.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An online information system, a method of collecting information on theproducts and services of merchants, establishing a weighting forcomparison information, calculating a ranking for the merchant based onthe weighting of the comparison information, and returning the resultsof the ranking to the consumer.

In one embodiment of the present invention the weighting factors areinput by the consumer, allowing the consumer to customize the ranking toreflect the priorities the consumer places on different factors whenmaking a purchasing decision.

The present invention overcomes the limitations of prior onlineinformation systems which did not have the capacity to provide a rankingbased on a wide variety of factors related to consumer purchasing habitsand decisions. Additionally, the system of the present invention allowsconsumers to customize the weighting of factors. A present embodimentprovides the ability for consumers to select which information itemsshould be considered in the ranking and the weight accorded to theindividual information items. Additionally, the present inventionprovides consumers with the ability to lock the chose weightings, and togroup information items in categories to more easily prioritizecategories of information relating to specific concerns of the consumer.Examples of specific concerns are security of the consumer's credit cardinformation, and the reliability of the merchant in delivering theproduct within a specified time.

These and other purposes and advantages of the invention will be betterappreciated from the following detailed description of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is an illustrative block diagram of the comparison shoppingsystem, in accordance with the present invention.

FIG. 2A is an illustrative block diagram of the weighting factors, inaccordance with the present invention.

FIG. 2B is an illustrative block diagram of the product specificweighting factors, in accordance with the present invention.

FIG. 2C illustrates examples of weighting factors specific to merchant'sbusiness, in accordance with the present invention.

FIG. 2D illustrates examples of merchant specific product weightingfactors, in accordance with the present invention.

FIG. 2E illustrates examples of weighting factors specific to themerchant's general business history, in accordance with the presentinvention.

FIG. 2F illustrates examples of weighting factors related to informationcollected or created by third party agencies and institutions on thespecified product, in accordance with the present invention.

FIG. 2G illustrates examples of weighting factors related to informationcollected or created by third party agencies and institutions on themerchant, in accordance with the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating the process of applying theweighting factors to calculate the ranking of merchants, in accordancewith the present invention.

FIG. 4A shows the query page for the consumer to initiate a ranking ofmerchants offering a specified product, in accordance with the presentinvention.

FIG. 4B shows the weighting factor customization page, in accordancewith the present invention.

FIG. 4C is a flow diagram of the process of adjusting the weightingfactors for the comparison information by the consumer, in accordancewith the present invention.

FIG. 4D is a ranking customization screen allowing the weighting ofcategories of comparison information by the consumer, in accordance withthe present invention.

FIG. 5A is a flow diagram of the process of calculating the aggregatevalue for the merchants in the ranking, in accordance with the presentinvention.

FIG. 5B is a flow diagram of the process of ranking the merchants, inaccordance with the present invention.

FIG. 6A shows the merchant ranking display providing the ranking of themerchants offering the specified product, in accordance with the presentinvention.

FIG. 6B is an alternate embodiment of the merchant ranking displayincluding additional display features, in accordance with the presentinvention.

FIG. 6C illustrates the display for the detailed breakdown of thecategory aggregate score, in accordance with the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

The present invention comprises a novel system and method providing aranking of merchants based on information on the merchants. Thefollowing description is presented to enable any person skilled in theart to make and use the invention, and is provided in the context of aparticular application and its requirements. Various modifications tothe preferred embodiment will be readily apparent to those skilled inthe art, and the general principles defined herein may be applied toother embodiments and applications without departing from the spirit andscope of the invention. Although described with reference to certainspecific embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that thepresent invention may be practiced with or without some or all of thesedetails. Thus, the present invention is not intended to be limited tothe embodiment shown but is to be accorded the widest scope consistentwith the principles and features disclosed herein.

Referring to the illustrative block diagram of FIG. 1, informationrelating to products offered by merchants is stored in the database (10)along with information on the merchants. Additionally, the databasestores an initial set of weighting factors. The database (10) isconnected to the server (12). The server (12) receives queries fromconsumers' (14) who are located at remote locations and access theserver (14) through the internet (16). Consumers typically would use abut could use any device capable of connecting to the server (12) toinitiate a query and receive a response from a query. This wouldinclude, without limitation, a web television device, a personal dataassistant, wireless communication device, or other computer.

As used herein “merchants,” unless specified, applies to any provider ofa good or service whether or not they are formally organized as abusiness. The term merchant applies to distributors, producers,organizations, non-profits and potentially individuals, offering a goodor service for barter or sale. Similarly, the term “consumer,” unlessotherwise specified, applies to any person or entity seeking informationon a good or service, whether or not there is a specific intention,desire, or ability to purchase or barter for the offered good orservice. Unless otherwise specified, the term “product” refers to anygood or service which is the subject of commerce.

In response to a query forwarded by the consumer the server requestscomparison information from the database relating to both the productspecified in the query and the merchants offering the specified product.The server also retrieves weighting factor information from thedatabase. The server applies the weighting factor information to themerchant information and the comparison information on the specifiedproduct to calculate weighted comparison factors relating to product andmerchant information. A detailed description of the calculation of theweighted comparison factors is provided below in connection with FIG. 3.The weighted comparison factors are summed to an aggregate score foreach merchant. The server uses the aggregate merchant score to produce aranking of the merchants offering the specified product. The serverreturns the ranking to the consumer through the internet as a responseto the consumer's query.

FIG. 2A is a block diagram illustrating categories of comparisoninformation stored in the database. The categories are arranged intofour categories: product information (201); merchant's businessinformation (202); merchant specific information on the specifiedproduct (203); and merchant specific information on the merchant'sbusiness history (204). Product specific information (201) includes theproduct's manufacturer, the product's model or other identifyinginformation, the product's size or other optional information, theproduct's color or other design optional information, and the product'ssuggested retail price from the manufacturer. The merchant's businessinformation (202) includes the merchant's name, address, contactinformation, and other identifying information, as well as themerchant's status as a business entity.

FIG. 2B illustrates examples of product specific information (229)including the product's manufacturer (205), the product's model or otheridentifying information (206), the product's size or other optionalinformation (207), the product's color or other design optionalinformation (208), the product's suggested retail price from themanufacturer (209); any discount or incentive programs (210) offered bythe manufacturer in connection with the specified product; anymanufactured warrantee (211) for the specified product, any manufacturerrecommendations (212) for installation, use or accompanying products orservices; information on the product provided to regulatory agenciesprovided by the manufacturer (213); product component parts (214);product performance specifications (215); recommended substitutions orcompatible products (216); standard industrial code identifier (217);standard industrial code category (218); product brand name or othername identifier (219); and general information (220).

FIG. 2C illustrates examples of merchant specific business information(202) including the merchant's name (221); address (222) of principleplace of business including the town or city, county, region, state andcountry; contact information (223) including addresses of other of themerchant's places of business, other identifying information such asphone numbers, fax numbers, web site URL's, and e-mail addressesincluding web site accessibility information, and contact informationrelating to customer service representatives (224); the merchant'sstatus as a business entity (225) such as a corporation, partnership,nonprofit organization, government entity, or individual; information(226) on the merchant's affiliation with other businesses, subsidiaries,parent corporations, government entities, partnerships, joint ventures,or nonprofit organizations, including the nature of the affiliation;whether the merchant is listed on a publicly traded stock exchange;qualifying buyer information relating to what buyer the merchant willsell to (227); and information provided to regulatory agencies inconnection with a listing on a publicly traded stock exchange (228).

FIG. 2D illustrates examples of merchant specific information (203) onthe specified product including the price (230) the merchant is offeringfor the good or service; whether there are any present or futurediscount or incentive programs (231) offered by the merchant inconnection with the specified product; whether the product is available(232) for immediate delivery, or performance; number of units of thespecified product or the number of instances the specified service canbe fulfilled (233); any volume discount's offered (234) on the specifiedproduct; the options for delivery (235) of the product, such as downloadthrough the internet, courier, mail, delivery service, facsimile, orother; expected cost for delivery of the product, including the defaultdelivery method (236), and information on pricing of optional deliverymethods (237); payment options (238), including discount information(239) for using the merchant's preferred payment method; most recentupdating of the merchant's web site in relation to the offered product(240); return and refund policies (241) for the specified product;availability of order tracking for the specified product (242),modifications or substitutions (243) the merchant is offering, or hasmade, to the specified product; information on the product provided toregulatory agencies by the merchant (244) and qualifying buyerinformation relating to what buyer the merchant will sell the specifiedproduct to (245). Qualifying buyer information includes whether themerchant will sell to dealers, individuals, value added resellers,credit qualifications for buyer, licenses or other qualifyinginformation.

FIG. 2E illustrates examples of merchant specific information on themerchant's general business history (204) including time in business(250); time offering and fulfilling orders on the internet (251);history of revenue (252) of the merchant's business, including breakdownof revenue (253); number of employees (254), including percentage ofemployees who are unionized (255); history of profits of the merchant'sbusiness (256), including breakdown of profits (257) from product andservice offerings by the merchant; time in business in the breakdown ofrevenue in the product and service offerings by the merchant (259);history of debt (258); bond rating (260); banking history (261) andcredit information; history of information provided to agencies inconnection with a listing on a public stock exchange (262); or otherinformation on the merchant provided to regulatory agencies (263).

FIG. 2F illustrates examples of product, or service, information (265)collected or created by third party agencies and institutions includingproduct evaluation and testing by third parties (266). Also included inthe third party product information category is information on thehistory of product defects (267), including history of product liabilitylawsuits (268) against the manufacturer for the specified product,including history of lost product liability lawsuits (269); history ofproduct recalls (270); and the history of regulatory agency action andrulings on product defects (271). Also included in the third partyproduct information category is information on the history of boycott'sagainst the manufacturer (272); information on the employer's laborrelations (273); and prior purchaser and consumer feedback information(274).

FIG. 2G illustrates examples of merchant specific information (280)collected or created by third party agencies and institutions includingmerchant's service rating (281); merchant's response rating (282);history of complaints by customers (283) to third parties or governmentagencies; evaluations of the merchant's performance in the handling ofcustomer complaints (284); and information on customer boycott's (285)against the merchant.

The process of applying the weighting factors to the information on themerchant or the specified product is illustrated in FIG. 3. As shown inconnection with FIG. 1, the server (12) receives queries from consumers(14) through the internet (16). The server (12) requests comparisoninformation at step (301) from the database (10) to prepare a responseto the consumer's query. The server checks whether comparisoninformation is available on the product specified in the consumer'squery at step (302). If comparison information is available the processproceeds to step (303) where the database (10) responds to the server'srequest by providing the comparison information, including weightingfactors, to the server. The database will provide comparison informationidentifying all merchants offering the specified product. The comparisoninformation retrieved from the database includes information relating tothe merchant and information relating to the product specified in thequery, as well as weighting factors to be applied to this information toproduce a ranking or evaluation of each merchant's offering of theproduct. If at step (304) it is determined that the comparisoninformation is not available, or is insufficient to perform a ranking,then a critical fault is generated at step (305). The server could entera preset response routine in such instances to notify the consumer ofthe lack of information and invite the consumer to modify the query. Insuch an instance a modified query will be submitted to the consumer andthe query response will be returned to step (301) and proceed throughthe process of FIG. 3 accordingly.

If at step (304) it is determined that the information is sufficient forranking the system proceeds to step (306). At step (306) the systemapplies a filter to screen any merchants not meeting any selectedcriteria. Examples of screening information includes any informationcorresponding to a potential weighting factor as shown in connectionwith FIG. 3. A consumer could screen merchants by payment method,location, and threshold for number of offered goods, maximum price,affiliation, or other information on the merchant included in thedatabase. Any merchant not meeting the specified filter is excluded atstep (306) from further evaluation and weighting. If the merchant meetsthe filter the method proceeds to step (307) where an inventory is doneagainst the information for each merchant. More particularly, step (307)compares the comparison information to be weighted for the ranking thatis available for one or more merchants but is not available for othermerchants. If a category of comparison information is not available forone merchant but is available for another merchant the system excludesat step (308) this category of comparison information from the ranking.The system proceeds to step (309) where the weighting factors areapplied to the comparison information. Step (309) produces an aggregatescore for each merchant which is the sum of the weighting factorsapplied to the relevant category of comparison information correspondingto the weighting factor. Examples of weighting factors and the processof aggregating the applied weighting factors are discussed in greaterdetail below in connection with Table 1. Step (310) then compares themerchant aggregate values to determine a ranking. The ranking determinedby step (310) is returned to the consumer as a ranking of the merchantswho are offering the goods the consumer has specified they areinterested in purchasing at step (311).

Table 1 shows examples of weighting factors used in comparing andranking merchants.

TABLE 1 For-Profit Companies Non-Profit Organizations IndividualsCategory Factor Factor Factor Name Name of Company Name of OrganizationName dba dba alias Type Sole Proprietorship 501 (c) (3) Manuf. Rep. DateRegistered Date Registered Distributor Partnership NGOs Other LimitedPartnership Military Limited Liability Corp. Other S - Corp C - CorpOther SIC code History Starting Date/Inc. Starting Date/Inc. Time inBusiness Time in Business Time on the Web Time on the Web Credit RatingCredit Rating Credit History Credit History Criminal Record CriminalRecord Awards Awards Awards Operations Storefront Storefront StorefrontCatalogue Catalogue Web Only Web Only Web Only Some/All Some/AllManagement Management Personnel Personnel # of Employees # of Employees# of Departments # of Departments % of Total Operations Board MembersBoard Members Trustees # of Members Alliances Major Contributors RankCons./Liberal Scale Financials Gross Revenues Gross Revenue % Store %Product % Web % Grants P/E Carry Forwards P/Book Ratio Debt Levels/TypeP/Cash Flow Audited P/L % Funds - Research P/R % Funds - Administration3 yr. Earnings Growth 1 yr. Earnings Est. % NAV Total Return % +/− S&P500 +/− Wilshire top 750 Income Return % Capital Return % Total Rtn. %Income $ Capital Gains $ Expense Ratio % Income Ratio % Turnover Rate %Total/Net Assets Debt Levels/Type Debt % Market Cap Sur/Def/Rel. toIndustry Insider Buying/Selling Mutual Fund Ownership Sensitivity to S&PShort Interest Med Mkt Cap Bankruptcy Filings Mergers Acquisitions LevelStock Trading Audited Sector Weightings Web Site Design Design DesignAccessibility Accessibility Accessibility Last Update Last Update LastUpdate Secured Site Secured Site Secured Site Security Options SecurityOptions Average Transaction Time Average Transaction Time CertificationCertification Certification Child/Porn Locks Child/Porn Locks Child/PornLock Age Verification Age Verification Age Veri. Visual CapabilitiesVisual Capabilities Visual Cap. Photos Photos Photos 3-D 3-D 3-D SalesSell to Individuals Sell to Individuals Sell to Ind Specifications Needa Federal ID # Need a Federal ID # Fed ID # Particular Credit RatingsPartic. Credit Rating Part. Credit Required Deposits Required DepositRequired Dep. Provide Product Specs Provide Prod. Spec Product Spec.Accept Bids Accept Bids Accept Bids Other Other Other Products Name ofProduct Name of Product Name of Product SIC Code Publications/Con.Manufacturer Code Surgical Procedure Quality of Product Courses ProductReviews Govern. Services Quality of Product Product Reviews CustomizableCustomizable Visual Capabilities Visual Capabilities Visual Cap. PhotosPhotos Photos 3-D 3-D 3-D Services Customer Service Dept. CustomerService Dept. # number of employ # employ time per call time per call #people in front # people in front automated service automated serviceOrder Tracking Order Tracking Returns Returns Guarantee GuaranteeGuarantee Other Other Consumer Comments Consumer Comments ComplaintsComplaints Complaints Languages Offered Languages Offered SpanishSpanish Portuguese Portuguese French French German German ChineseChinese Japanese Japanese Russian Russian Other Other Overseas ShippingOverseas Shipping Price Price Price Price lowest lowest lowestnegotiable negotiable negotiable level of buying level of buying levelof buying <100 units <100 <100 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <10,000 <10,000<10,000 <100,000 <100,000 <500,000 <500,000 <1,000,000<1,000,000 >1,000,000 >1,000,000 previous price paid previous price paidprevious paid Shipping Charges Shipping Charges Shipping ChargesHandling Charges Handling Charges Handling Charges Auction/Bid OptionAuction/Bid Option Bid/Option Inventory Inventory Availability InventoryAvailability Inventory Levels Inventory Levels Inventory Turns InventoryTurns Fresh Stock Fresh Stock Broker From Other Co. Broker From OtherCo. Delivery Delivery Terms Delivery Terms Delivery Terms OvernightOvernight 2 days 2 days 7 days 7 days 15 days 15 days 30 days 30 days 3months 3 months 6 months 6 months Price Change Price Change PaymentCash/Check Cash/Check Cash/Check COD COD COD Credit Cards Credit CardsCredit Card VISA/Mastercard VISA/Mastercard AMEX AMEX DiscoveryDiscovery Other Other e-wallet e-wallet 30 days 30 days 45 days 45 days60 days 60 days Letter of Credit Letter of Credit Wire Transfer WireTransfer Wire Transfer Confidential Credit Info. Confidential CreditInfo. Security Web/Bank Certification Web/Bank Certification cert. ofauthenticity cert. of authenticity “public key” crypt “public key” cryptfingerprint id fingerprint id Secured Sites Secured Sites Links LinksSpam Blocks Spam Blocks Age/Site Limits Age/Site Limits ConfidentialCredit Info. Confidential Credit Info. Geography Site location Name ofCity Name of City Name of City Name of County Name of County Name ofCounty Name of State Name of State Name of State Name of Country Name ofCountry Name of Country Name of Region Name of Region Name of RegionWorldwide Worldwide Worldwide Other Other Other Sales territory Name ofCity Name of City Name of County Name of County Name of State Name ofState Name of Country Name of Country Name of Region Name of RegionWorldwide Worldwide Other Other Shipping Name of City Name of City Nameof County Name of County Name of State Name of State Name of CountryName of Country Name of Region Name of Region Worldwide Worldwide OtherOther Politics Site location Name of County Government Dem. Rep.Monarchy Const. Mon Dictatorship Military Other Political Stability WarBorder Disputes Civil War Protest Move. Currency Stability DevaluationChange Regional Trade Alliances Nafta EC SEAC Product Barriers ImportsExports Tariffs Member of UN Inst. Sanctions IMF World Bank UN SocialSlave Labor Compliance Responsibility Child Labor ComplianceEnvironmental Compliance Women-Owned Business Minority-Owned BusinessProduct Safety Standards Class-action Lawsuits All Natural ProductsOther For-Profit Companies Non-Profit Organizations Rating/InfoServiceRating/InfoService Dun & Bradstreet ™ NCQA ™TM Moody's ™ Nat. Ency.Associations Standard & Poor's ™ Inc Magazine ™ Better Business Bureau ™Money Magazine ™ Consumer Reports ™ Public Policy Schools Federal TradeCommission State Agencies Securities Ex. Commission Universities VISA ™Healthcare Report Cards AMEX ™ Jcaho.org ™ Merrill Lynch ™ OtherMorningstar ™ JD Powers ™ Good Housekeeping ™ Gomez Advisors Inc. ™Internet Broker Scorecard ™ Improvenet's Cont. Watch ™ MobilRestaurant ™ Zagat's ™ Fyodors ™ Others

FIG. 4A shows a query page (400) where a consumer enters a query for aproduct to initiate a ranking for merchants offering the specifiedproduct. The query tag (401) informs the consumer that they should entera query for a specified product. The query can be in the form of aBoolean search or a natural language search. The search terms mayinclude the product name, manufacturer name, product model number, thestandard industrial code for the product, or any other identifier. Theconsumer enters the query in query field (402), which is adjacent to thequery tag (401). A query help button (403) allows the consumer torequest help and instructions in drafting a query. Optionally, a rankingcustomization button (404) allows the consumer to connect to a weightingfactor customization page (410) shown in FIG. 4B.

FIG. 4B shows the weighting factor customization page (410), asidentified in a page header (411). The weighting factor customizationpage lists the comparison information which could potentially berelevant to a ranking of merchants offering a product in the comparisoninformation fields (412). Examples of comparison information items areillustrated in FIGS. 2A-2G. Adjacent the comparison fields are weightingfields (413). The consumer may enter their own weighting factors in theweighting fields, thereby ascribing a weighting factor to the item ofcomparison information in the adjacent comparison fields. Optionally, aninitial set of weighting factors could be present in the weightingfields (413), and the consumer could modify the weightings of items ofcomparison information according to the consumer's preferences. In thismanner the present invention allows the system to suggest weightingfactors to a consumer while allowing customization of the weightingfactors. Optionally, adjacent the weighting fields (413) are weightingfield lock (414) indicators which correspond to the adjacent weightingfield and comparison information field. The system can lock the weightsof some of the comparison information such that the weighting factorcan't be altered. In this manner the system protects the user fromremoving critical pieces of information from the ranking. Optionally,the system locks could be clickable by the consumer to allow theconsumer to lock in specific weights such that the system will notrebalance or change them from the user's desired weighting.

Optionally, category fields (415) are adjacent the weighting lock fields(414). The category fields tie together items of comparison informationpresent in the corresponding comparison fields (413). The same givennumber, character, string, symbol, or other identifier entered in thecategory fields of two comparison fields indicates to the system thatthese two items of comparison information are to be includes in the samecategory. Category tags (416) indicate the available categories ofcomparison information, such as security, on time delivery, customersatisfaction, environmental compliance, labor relations, etc. Adjacentthe category tags (416) are category weighting fields (417). A weightingfactor for a category is entered in the category weighting fields (417).By entering the identifier in the category field of two or more items ofcomparison information, the consumer indicates that the selectedcomparison information items are to be part of a category having aspecific weighting factor, as entered in the category weighting field(417). Any changes to the weighting factors entered in the weightingfields (413) corresponding to comparison information items will notchange the weighting of the category of information which the comparisoninformation item corresponds. In this manner the present inventionallows a consumer to adjust the relative weights of comparisoninformation items relating to security, while keeping constant theweighting factor for security in the ranking. Optionally, the items ofcomparison information could be arranged into categories which the usercould then customize or eliminate altogether. Another option of thepresent invention is to allow comparison information items correspondingto the same category to be grouped on the screen. As the user adds ordeletes comparison information items from a given category the systemcould rearrange the comparison information tags, and their associatedweighting factor fields, to associate comparison information tags withother comparison information tags in the same category.

Optionally, category weighting locks (418) which correspond to thecategory tag (416) are adjacent the category weighting fields. Thesystem can lock the weights of some of the categories such that thecorresponding category weighting factor can't be altered. In this mannerthe system protects the user from removing or rebalancing criticalcategories of information from the ranking. Optionally, the system lockscould be clickable by the consumer to allow the consumer to lock inspecific weights such that the system will not rebalance or change themfrom the user's desired weighting.

A weight factor tutor button (420) allows the consumer to requestinstructions and advice from the system on how to customize theweighting ranking to suit the consumers need. Optionally, the systemcould suggest different weighting factor paradigms for the consumer. Inthis manner the system would provide multiple paradigms where theweighting factors are chosen to maximize a particular preference set,while still considering other factors in the merchant ranking. As anexample, one weighting factor paradigm could provide a strong emphasison security, while ranking all other information at a lower, roughlyequivalent, level. Another paradigm could give a high ranking to bothtotal cost of the delivered product and to the factors relating tocustomer satisfaction, giving a secondary ranking to security andon-time delivery, and giving a very low ranking to environmental andlabor relation factors. Still another paradigm could give the highestweighting to environmental and labor relations, giving a secondaryweighting to both offered price and customer satisfaction, and giving avery low ranking to on-time deliver and delivery options. Accordingly,the system could offer multiple paradigm choices to meet the variedpreferences of consumers.

At the bottom of the weighting customization page (410) a weightingreset button (421) allows the consumer to enter the changes they havemade, or values they have entered, into the system of the presentinvention. In response to the consumer clicking on the weighting resetbutton (421) the system stores the displayed values for use inperforming the ranking of merchants.

The process of a consumer customizing the weighting factors is shown inFIGS. 4C-D. From the web page the consumer views to enter a query, theconsumer may select customization of the factors utilized in rankingmerchants. This is done by the consumer clicking on the rankingcustomization button (404) shown in FIG. 4A. In response to theconsumer's clicking on the ranking customization button the systempresents the consumer with the weighting factor customization page (410)shown in FIG. 4B. The user is first presented with a choice of weightingfactors at step (424). All of the available factors can be presented tothe user at once, as illustrated in FIG. 4B, or the user can bepresented with categories of factors.

The process of customizing the ranking without the use of categories isshown in FIG. 4C. The system presents the user with comparisoninformation items as shown in FIG. 4B at step (424). The weightingfields (413), which correspond to the comparison information itemsdisplayed in the adjacent comparison information fields (412), mayeither be blank or may display suggested weighting factors to theconsumer. The user may enter or modify the weighting factors to reflectthe relative weight the user places on the corresponding comparisoninformation item. Weighting factors can be an indication of relativeimportance to the ranking. For example, the consumer could rank eachinformation item with a 1-5 score with five corresponding to thegreatest significance to the consumer, and thereby the greatest relativeweight in the ranking, and one corresponding to the least significanceto the consumer, and thereby the lowest relative weight in the ranking.Alternatively, the system could allow for weighting factors tocorrespond to a percentage contribution to the aggregate score of theranking. In such an embodiment the consumer selects the percentageweight the corresponding information item is to compose out of the totalaggregate score for the merchant. In such an embodiment the systemperforms a total sum for the weighting factors to determine whether theconsumer has modified the weighting factors which sum to more than 100%of the total weighting, and notifies the consumer with a warning messagethat the weighting factors must not sum to more than 100%.

Once the consumer is satisfied with the relative weighting of comparisoninformation the consumer clicks on the weighting reset button (421). Inresponse, at step (425) the system receives the weighting factorsdisplayed when the consumer clicked on the weighting reset button. Atstep (426) the system saves the weighting factors as modified for use inthe ranking for the consumer.

FIG. 4D illustrates the process of customizing the ranking including theuse of categories. The system presents the user with comparisoninformation items as shown in FIG. 4B at step (430). The weightingfields (413) and (417) and the category fields (415) corresponding toeither, or both, the comparison information and the categories, mayeither be blank or may display suggested weighting factors to theconsumer. The user may enter or modify the weighting factorscorresponding to either, or both, the comparison information or thecategories. The fields corresponding to the categories fields may eitherblank or include suggestions on associations for the consumer. Asdescribed above in connection with FIG. 4C, the weighting factors mayeither be an indication of relative importance in the ranking, orreflect a percentage contribution to the aggregate score for theranking. The consumer may either enter or modify association factors inthe category fields (415), as shown in FIG. 4B, to vary, or create,categories according to the consumer's preferences. Once the consumer issatisfied with the relative weighting of comparison information and therelative weighting of categories the consumer clicks on the weightingreset button (421). In response, at step (431) the system saves theweighting factors and category identifiers as modified for use theranking.

At step (432) the system creates the category associations based on theassociation factors entered in the category fields (415). At step (433)the system begins the process of calculating categorization weightingfactors. In response to the weighting factors entered corresponding tothe comparison information items and the categories, along with theentering of the category identifiers, the system must harmonize theweighting factors entered in each field to reflect the consumers desiredweighting. For instance, if a consumer selected the security category ashaving only a ten percent weighting on the overall ranking, and selectedcredit card security and availability of fraud insurance as the only twocomparison information items in the security category, while givingcredit card security a high ranking of five and fraud insurance a lowranking of one, the system would calculate categorization weightingfactors corresponding to both the credit card security comparisoninformation item and the fraud insurance comparison information item foruse in the ranking. At step (434) the weighting factors corresponding tothe credit card security and the fraud insurance are converted topercentage values. When weighting factors are expressed a ranking ofrelative importance, such as a 1 through 5 ranking, the system convertsthe weighting factors into percentage values based on a predeterminedformula. In the presently preferred invention the conversion formula isexpressed in steps (433) through (435).

At step (433) the system counts all the weighting factors in eachaccepted weighting value, and the total number of weighting factors. Inthe present example, the system would have a total of two weightingfactors, one each for credit card security and fraud insurance. Thenumber of each weighting factor is expressed as N_(x). The system wouldalso have a total of 1 weighting factor of five (N₅=1), zero weightingfactors of 4 (N₄=0), zero weighting factors of 3 (N₃=0), zero weightingfactors of 2 (N₂=0), and one weighting factors of 1 (N₁=1). Thepercentage value for each weighting factor is expressed as P_(x) where xcorresponds to the weighting factor. For example, the percentageweighting factor for five is represented by P₅. The formulae theweighting factors satisfy isΣP _(x) N _(x)=100%  Eqn. 1P_(x)> . . . >P₅>P₄>P₃>P₂>P₁  Eqn. 2P _(x) −P _(x−1) =P _(x−1) −P _(x−2) = . . . =P ₂ −P ₁  Eqn. 3

Equation 1 provides that the total number of weighting factors sum to100%. Equation two provides that the weighting factor corresponding tothe more important weighting rank has a higher percentage weightingfactor than the lower ranked weighting factors. Equation 3 provides thatthe step between percentage weighting values is equal between any twoneighboring rank weighting factors.

For the present example of x ranging from 1 to 5P ₅ N ₅ +P ₄ N ₄ +P ₃ N ₃ +P ₂ N ₂ +P ₁ N ₁=100 orP ₅ +P ₁=100%, andP₅>P₁

The preferred weighting is for P₅=30%, P₄=25%, P₃=20%, P₂=15%, P₁=10%.The present system adjusts the weighting factors P_(x) to with respectto Eqn. 1-3. For the present example, P₅=70% and P₁=30%.

At step (435) the system replaces the weighting factors stored in thesystem prior to the customization by the consumer with the percentageweighting factors calculated at step (434).

FIGS. 5A-C illustrates the process of calculating an aggregate score fora given merchant and comparing the aggregate scores to determine aranking of merchants offering the product specified in the consumer'squery. FIG. 5A illustrates the calculation of the aggregate score usingthe stored merchant weighting factors. Calculation of the aggregatescore for a given merchant begins with the input of the query from theconsumer at step (501). At step (502) the system checks to determinewhether there is information available on the specified product. Ifinformation is available, the system proceeds to step (503). Ifinformation is not available the system returns the query page to theconsumer with a message indicating that no items match the query. Theconsumer would enter a new, or modified, query at step (501) and repeatthe process. At step (503) the system returns from the database allmerchants, and their corresponding comparison information, listed ashaving the specified product, along with screening factors and weightingfactor data. Screening factors are applied to the returned merchants atstep (504). Merchants who match the screening factors are eliminatedfrom the weighting and ranking process at step (505). Optionally, step(505) could include creating a separate list of eliminated merchants foraccess by the consumer upon request.

At step (506) the comparison information retrieved at step (503) iscompared between the merchants to determine whether the data sets foreach merchant are complete. If one or more merchants lack an item ofcomparison information on a particular aspect of their offering, such asoptions on shipping or information on consumer complaints, the systemhas several options to normalize the data. If there are a large numberof merchants offering complete, or nearly complete, data sets than anymerchant with a partial data set could be eliminated from the ranking.Optionally, this merchant's elimination, the reason for the elimination,and the particular data elements missing from the data set, could besaved for retrieval by the consumer. Alternatively, merchants withincomplete data sets could have their data sets “completed” by givingthe merchant the lowest possible value consistent with the correspondinginformation. For example, information relating to the option of havingexpress overnight delivery for the specified product may receive onepoint if the merchant offers this delivery option, and zero points ifthe merchant does not. If this information was missing from themerchant's data set the system could normalize the data set by givingthis merchant a zero point value for the express delivery option.Optionally, this lacking of this data value for the particular merchantcould be stored and retrieved by the consumer.

At step (507) the system applies the weighting factors to thecorresponding comparison information from step (506). The weightingfactors, represented as percentage values reflecting the respectivecontribution of the corresponding weighting factor data, are multipliedby their corresponding comparison information item. The product of thismultiplication is a weighted comparison value. The weighted comparisonvalues are summed for each merchant at step (508) to calculate anaggregate score for the corresponding merchant. Optionally, the systemalso stores the aggregate scores at step (508).

FIG. 5B illustrates the process of comparison and ranking of themerchants. At step (509) the aggregate scores corresponding to themerchants are received from step (508) of FIG. 5A. At step (510) thesystem initializes the comparison by setting N equal to the total numberof merchant's being ranked, and by setting the incrementing variable 1equal to the integer one. After the initialization step (510), thesystem proceeds to step (511) where the greatest weighted comparisonvalue is determined by comparison of weighted comparison values. At step(512) the system assigns the merchant corresponding to the greatestweighted comparison value the rank equal to the incrementing variable I.At step (513) this merchant with the greatest weighted comparison valueis eliminated from the ranking. Optionally, step (513) could includecreating a separate list of eliminated merchants for access by theconsumer upon request. At step (514) the incrementing variable I isincremented by one. At step (514) the system compares the incrementingvariable to the number of merchants N to determine if they are equal. Ifthey are not, the system returns to step (511) to determine the greatestweighted comparison value for the merchants remaining in the ranking. Ifat step (515) I=N, then the system proceeds to step (516) where theremaining merchant is given the ranking equal to N. The system thenreturns the ranking to the consumer at step (517).

Optionally, the system would also ascribe a star rating to the merchantsbased on their rating. As described in connection with FIG. 6C,merchants can receive a rating based on their comparison weightingvalue. In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the numberof stars ascribed to a merchant is based on the merchant being within aset percentage from the greatest weighted comparison value. For example,merchants with a weighted comparison value of no less than 95% of thegreatest weighted comparison value would be given the highest rating offive stars. Merchants between 95% and 85% of the greatest weightedcomparison value would receive four stars. Merchants between 85% and 75%of the greatest weighted comparison value would receive three stars.Merchants between 75% and 65% of the greatest weighted comparison valuewould receive two stars. Merchants between 65% and 55% of the greatestweighted comparison value would receive one star. Merchants below 55% ofthe greatest weighted comparison value would receive no stars.

Alternatively, the ranking could use other break points for ascribingmerchants a rating. Alternate embodiments could use other indicatorsother than stars for rating merchants.

Optionally, the present invention could use the rating system to applyto categories within the ranking. For example, a merchant that receiveda lower rank in the security category may be given the highest ratingdue to the small difference between that merchant's weighted securitycomparison value and that of the merchant with the greatest weightedsecurity comparison value.

Optionally, the present rating and ranking system could be applied toindividual comparison information factors. A merchant's specific rank onone comparison factor can be calculated and presented to the consumer.

In this manner the present invention provides detailed comparisoninformation on not only the ranking based on a plurality of factors,which are weighted to reflect their relative importance to a consumer,but also provides relative difference information to indicate when thedifference between merchants comparison values are relatively small, orrelatively large. The present invention allows both of these comparisonfeatures to be presented on the total ranking, the ranking of merchantswithin a category, and that relative difference for individualcomparison factors.

FIG. 6A shows a display screen for providing the merchant ranking to theconsumer. At the top of the display screen (600) the query entered bythe consumer is displayed at the query line (601). In the presentlypreferred embodiment, the merchant with the highest aggregate score islisted at the top merchant line (611), below the query line (601).Alternate embodiments of the present invention could use lowestaggregate score to indicate the highest ranking merchant. In thepresently preferred embodiment, the merchant with the second highestaggregate score is listed on a merchant line (612) below the merchantline (611) for the number one ranked merchant. N merchant lines(613)-(615) are provided for the remaining merchants in descending orderof their aggregate value from the top of the display to the bottom. Ifmore than a present number of merchants are included in the ranking acontinuation of the merchant ranking list could be included onadditional display pages.

The merchant line includes a merchant rank block (602) on the leftmostportion of the merchant display line (611). The merchant rank blockgives the merchants rank based on the merchant's aggregate valuerelative to the other merchant in the ranking. A merchant name block(603) is located adjacent to the merchant name block (602) andidentifies the merchant through their trade name. An aggregate valuetotal block (604) is adjacent to the merchant name block (603) anddisplays the aggregate value for the merchant identified in the merchantname block. An offered price block (605) is adjacent to the aggregatevalue block (604). The offered price block (605) displays the price themerchant in the merchant named in the merchant name block (603) isoffering to sell the queried product. Optionally, a rating block (606)is adjacent the offered price block (605) and is located on therightmost position of the merchant display line (611). The rating block(606) displays the rating given to the merchant in connection with themerchant's aggregate value. All of the blocks (602)-(606) in themerchant display line include information specific to the merchant namedin the merchant name block (603).

FIG. 6B shows an alternate embodiment of the present invention where themerchant display line (621) includes category icons (622)-(625)corresponding to the categories from the merchant weighting factordisplay (410) as shown in FIG. 4B. The category icons can include anyidentifier such as a symbol, name character, etc., alone or incombination, to identify the category of comparison information.Adjacent the category icons are category rank fields (626)-(629). Thecategory rank fields display an aggregate score for only thosecomparison information items included in the category corresponding tothe adjacent category icon. Both the category icons and the categoryrank fields display information corresponding to the merchant identifiedby the merchant name block (630) of the merchant display line (621). Inthis manner, the consumer can see why a particular merchant may receivea lower score, due to one particular category receiving a low score,while other categories receive relatively high scores. This allows theconsumer to investigate why the merchant received the low score for thecategory by clicking on the category icon for the category with therelatively low score. The system then provides a detailed breakdown ofthe category aggregate score by presenting the page shown in FIG. 6C.

FIG. 6C displays the category identifier (641), which may be thecategory icon from FIG. 6B or other way of identifying the category tothe consumer, at the top of the category breakdown page (640). Thecomparison information items in the category identified by the categoryidentifier (641) are listed in the comparison information tags (642).Adjacent the category identifier are comparison information item scorefields (643). The comparison information item score fields display thescore the merchant received when the comparison information item wasmultiplied by the corresponding weighting factor. Adjacent thecomparison information item score field is a comparison information itemscore relative rank field (644). The comparison information item scorefield (643) displays the relative rank of the comparison informationitem score for the merchant with the comparison information item scorefor other merchants for the same comparison information item. Thecomparison information item relative rank allows the consumer toidentify and evaluate why the merchant was given a low score in thecategory, by showing the merchants score for the comparison informationitems. In this manner the consumer is presented with information whichthe user may benefit from in making purchasing decisions.

The present invention provides a comparison system which increases thevalue of the returned results by giving the consumer the tools toinspect the ranking process. The present inventions ability to provide adetailed breakdown of the weighting factors and categories ofinformation used allow the consumer to inspect the ranking process. Inthis manner the consumer can have confidence that the ranking is basedon information about the product and merchant that is relevant to theconsumer's purchasing decision. This eliminates the consumers concernsthat the ranking is based on hidden factors that are not aligned withthe consumer's interest, such as licensing fees or other promotionalfees paid to some of the existing web sites.

The ability of the present invention to allow the consumer to customizethe ranking gives the consumer the tools to increase the accuracy,reliability and relevance of the ranking. The present invention allowsthe consumer the flexibility to personalize the ranking system toreflect their individual priorities when making purchasing decisions. Inthis manner the present invention reflects the users priorities, givingthe user confidence that the ranking is not based on extraneous factorsthat are unimportant to the user when making purchasing decisions.

While the present embodiment shows only one database, information on themerchants, offered products or services, and weighting factors could bestored in multiple databases or split amongst multiple databases. Thedatabase (10) or databases need not be located at the same facility asthe server (12).

Various modifications and improvements to the preferred embodiment canbe made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.For example, while the stem has been described in connection with searchfor and comparing the offerings of one product from multiple merchants,the present invention could be easily adapted to search for cancomparing the offerings from merchants on groups of products, or a“basket” of goods. For example, consumers wishing to lower their monthlygrocery bill could specify a basket of goods they are interested inbuying, everything from meats and cheeses to fruits and vegetables, andcompare merchants offering based on lowest price, reliability ofdelivery, security of payment, and rankings of the quality of thedelivered goods as rated by prior customers, in addition to otherinformation the consumer deems relevant to their intended purchase. As afurther example, the present invention is equally applicable to thecomparison and ranking of different products. The present invention calallow a consumer to search for two competing products, such as VCRs orautomobiles, where the system ranks the offering of two different modelsby comparing the features and offered terms of sale including price.Depending on the weighting used in the ranking the present invention mayreturn the higher price product as a higher weighting due additionalfeatures or other aspects of the product. In this manner the presentinvention helps to inform the consumer by comparing and ranking based onthe consumer's true priorities when making a purchasing decision.

1. In an online comparison system, a method of ranking merchants,comprising: entering by a consumer a set of weighting factors prior toreceiving query information related to a potential consumer purchase,the weighting factors corresponding to categories of merchant comparisoninformation data; receiving the query information related to thepotential consumer purchase; receiving a plurality of merchantcomparison information data for a plurality of merchants related tocompleting the potential consumer purchase, the merchant comparisoninformation data for a merchant organized into a plurality ofcategories, wherein the merchant comparison information data includesnon-opinion data from at least two categories from price category,product availability category, product inventory category, time todeliver product category, payment terms category, payment methodcategory, merchant creditworthiness category, and inventory categoryinformation; calculating a plurality of respective merchant data weightresultant values for each merchant of the plurality of merchants bymultiplying each weighting factor from the entered set of weightingfactors by a data value of the merchant comparison information data froma corresponding merchant data category; calculating an aggregate scorefor each merchant by summing the plurality of calculated merchant dataweight resultant values; ranking the merchants based on the aggregatescores to produce a ranking result; and returning the ranking result tothe consumer, the ranking result corresponding to the received queryinformation.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: requestinginformation from the consumer relating to a potential consumer purchase.3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: providing the rankingresult to the consumer in response to the consumer's response to therequest for information relating to a potential consumer purchase. 4.The method of claim 3, further comprising: excluding a merchant from theranking result when the merchant receives an aggregate score below aspecified threshold.
 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:requesting weighting factor information from a consumer; and using theconsumer entered weighting factor information in the calculation of therespective merchant data weight resultant value.
 6. The method of claim5, wherein the weighting factors are balanced such that the weightingfactors sum to a predetermined value.
 7. The method of claim 1, whereinthe weighting factors sum to a predetermined value.
 8. A method ofranking merchants in an online comparison system, comprising the stepsof: entering by a consumer a set of weighting factors prior to receivingquery information related to a potential consumer purchase of a userspecified product; receiving the query information relating to said userspecified product from the consumer; retrieving a list of merchants froma database, wherein the list of merchants includes merchants offeringsaid user specified product; retrieving merchant specific informationabout the merchants in said list of merchants, said merchant specificinformation including a plurality of merchant data entry values, themerchant data entry values representing non-opinion data; for eachmerchant in the list of merchants, applying the weighting factors to acorresponding subset of the merchant specific information includingmultiplying each of said merchant data entry values by a correspondingweighting factor from the set of weighting factors to calculate amerchant data weight resultant value, to produce a plurality of merchantdata weight resultant values; for each merchant in the list ofmerchants, summing the corresponding plurality of merchant data weightresultant values to calculate a merchant aggregate score for said eachmerchant; ranking said list of merchants based on the calculatedmerchant aggregate scores to produce a ranking result; and returning theranking result to the consumer, the ranking result corresponding to saiduser specified product, wherein any merchant for which the calculatedaggregate score does not satisfy a specified criterion is excluded fromthe result.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the weighting factors arechosen by the consumer from a preset grouping of weighting factors. 10.The method of claim 8, wherein the weighting factors are specified bythe consumer.
 11. The method of claim 8, further comprising the step ofeliminating those merchants from the ranking result if the merchantspecific information is incomplete for that merchant.
 12. The method ofclaim 11, wherein said eliminating occurs only for merchants whosemerchant specific data is incomplete as compared to a predefinedscreening criterion.
 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the predefinedscreening criterion is received from the consumer.
 14. The method ofclaim 8, further comprising the step of excluding from the rankingresult comparison information items not common to all merchants in theranking result.
 15. The method of claim 8, further comprising the stepsof: presenting the consumer with a list of merchant informationcategories; receiving consumer selected merchant information categories;and ranking merchants based upon the selected information categories.16. The method of claim 8, further comprising the steps of: receivingcategory weighting factors from the consumer, wherein category weightingfactors are applied to all comparison information corresponding to thecategory in the merchant specific information; and ranking merchantsaccording to the received category weighting factors.
 17. A method ofranking merchants in an online comparison system, comprising: receivingfrom a consumer a set of weighting factors prior to receiving queryinformation specifying a product or service, the weighting factorscorresponding to categories of merchant comparison information, whereineach said weighting factor is entered as a numerical value andrepresents the relative importance to be given to corresponding merchantcomparison information in ranking the merchants; receiving the queryinformation related to a product or service from the consumer;retrieving merchant comparison information data of merchants offeringsaid product or service from a database, the retrieved merchantcomparison information data corresponding to the entered queryinformation, the merchant comparison information excluding opinion dataand survey result data; calculating a plurality of weighted categoryscores for each merchant by, for each of the weighting factors,multiplying the weighting factor by a corresponding data value of theretrieved merchant comparison information data to calculate a weightedcategory score, and summing the weighted category scores to calculate amerchant overall score of each merchant; ranking the merchants accordingto the calculated merchant overall score of each merchant to produce aranking result; and returning the ranking result to the consumer, theranking result corresponding to the received query information.
 18. Amethod of ranking merchants in an online comparison system, comprising:selecting, by a consumer, a plurality of weighting factors prior toreceiving query information specifying a product or service, theweighting factors corresponding to merchant comparison information;receiving the query information specifying a product or service from theconsumer; retrieving the merchant comparison information of merchantsoffering said product or service from a database, the retrieved merchantcomparison information corresponding to the query information;calculating a plurality of weighted category scores for each merchantby, for each of the selected weighting factors, multiplying theweighting factor by a data value of the retrieved merchant comparisoninformation to calculate a weighted category score, and summing theweighted category scores to calculate the merchant score of eachmerchant; ranking the merchants according to the calculated merchantscore of each merchant to produce a ranking result, wherein theretrieved merchant comparison information excludes information obtainedfrom surveys and information specifying the opinion of a person; andreturning the ranking result to the consumer, the ranking resultcorresponding to the query specifying a product or service.
 19. Themethod of claim 18, wherein the weighting factors and the queryinformation are specified by the consumer.
 20. The method of claim 18,wherein the weighting factors are selected by the consumer from a listof weighting factors.
 21. The method of claim 20, wherein the list ofweighting factors corresponds to the merchant information.
 22. Themethod of claim 20, wherein the consumer can modify the selectedweighting factors to enter a weighting factor not included in the listof weighting factors.
 23. The method of claim 20, wherein the list ofweighting factors is entered by the consumer.
 24. The method of claim20, wherein the list of weighting factors is selected by the consumerfrom a group of lists of weighting factors.
 25. The method of claim 18,wherein the selection is made from a drop down list of weightingfactors.